coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to M.N.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 February 1986, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 13 March 1986, which was made enforceable on 24 March 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
9.  On 13 April 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.
10.  On 13 May 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 14 June 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 August 1989.
12.  Between 9 August 1989 and 1 December 1998, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 3 November 1999.
14.  By a decision of 3 July 2000, which was made enforceable on 6 September 2000, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 March 2001.
15.  On 1 March 2001, the applicants served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 2001.
16.  Pursuant to Law no. 388/00 and then to Legislative Decree no. 247/01 the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 28 March 2002.
7.  The applicant lives in Rome.
8.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.M.S.
9.  In a registered letter of 10 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 October 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 1 February 1988, which was made enforceable on 22 April 1988, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 February 1989.
12.  On 24 May 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 18 July 1989 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 July 1989.
14.  Between 25 July 1989 and 10 December 1998 the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  Pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the eviction proceedings were suspended until 30 November 2000.
16.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
17.  On 3 November 2000, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 November 2000.
18.  On February 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Rome.
9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which had been let to M.R.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 September 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 11 March 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 July 1992.
12.  On 22 September 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 22 October 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 1992.
14.  On 21 November 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
15.  Between 27 November 1992 and 11 March 1997, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 8 April 1997, the applicant repossessed the premises.
8.  The applicants were born in 1954, 1956 and 1952 respectively and live in Rome.
9.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to G.D.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 May 1984, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 15 October 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 May 1987.
12.  On 17 June 1987, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 30 July 1987, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 September 1987.
14.  Between 14 September 1987 and 29 February 2000, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession.
15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 3 July 2000, the applicants recovered possession of their flat.
7.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Monte Porzio Catone (Rome).
8.  She is the owner of a flat in Monte Porzio Catone, which she had let to R.L.
9.  In a registered letter of 7 July 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 December 1986, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Frascati Magistrate (Rome).
12.  By a decision of 31 March 1987, which was made enforceable on 14 April 1987, the Frascati Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
13.  On 10 January 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 4 July 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 July 1989.
15.  Between 27 July 1989 and 26 May 2000 the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  In the meanwhile, on 12 July 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter.
17.  On 8 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant, Marianne Petschar, is an Austrian national, born in 1940, and living in Villach. She is represented before the Court by Mr J. Gradenegger.
9.  On 10 August 1987 the applicant and other land-owners requested the Villach District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) to grant them rights to construct a road for transporting wood over third person’s property (Bringungsrechte).
10.  On 28 November 1988 the District Agricultural Authority, referring to the Regional Forestry Roads Act (Güter- und Seilwege Landesgesetz) issued a decree granting the applicant and other land owners a right to construct a road for transporting timber over third persons’ property during six months per year.
11.  On 18 September 1989 the Regional Agricultural Authority (Landesagrarbehörde) quashed the District Agricultural Authority’s decision and referred the case back to it.
12.  On 4 December 1990 the District Agricultural Authority re-issued an order granting the applicant and other land owners the right to construct a road for transporting timber over third persons’ property. One of the land-owners concerned appealed.
13.  On 21 October 1991 the Regional Agricultural Authority quashed the District Agricultural Authority’s decision and again referred the case back to it.
14.  On 3 November 1992 the District Agricultural Authority requested the District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) to issue permits required under the Environmental Protection Act (Naturschutzgesetz) and the Forestry Act.
15.  On 19 May 1993 the District Administrative Authority suspended the proceedings as the District Agricultural Authority had stated that it would elaborate a new draft project. Subsequently several expert opinions were obtained and the new draft project elaborated.
16.  On 13 August 1997 all issues of water rights, forestry and nature conservation affected by the construction of a road for transporting timber were dealt with in a common hearing. In the following months the permits under the Environmental Protection Act, the Water Rights Act and the Forestry Act were given.
17.  On 15 September 1998 the Villach District Agricultural Authority granted the applicant and other land owners the right to construct a road and to transport timber over third persons’ property.
7.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Sorrento.
8.  She is the owner of a flat in Meta (Naples), which she had let to V.C.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Sorrento Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 12 July 1989, which was made enforceable on 26 September 1989, the Sorrento Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 May 1991.
11.  On 18 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 27 July 1992 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 August 1992.
13.  Between 12 August 1992 and 16 June 1998 the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 18 June 1998 the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Sorrento.
9.  He is the owner of a flat in Sorrento, which he had let to A.E. and F.C.
10.  In a writ served on the tenants on 5 November 1983, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
11.  By a provisional decision of 23 November 1983, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit, ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1986 and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case, indicating that the Naples District Court had jurisdiction to hear it.
12.  On 16 January 1984, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. In a judgment of 10 January 1986, the Court declared that the lease was terminated as of 31 December 1985 and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 September 1986. The judgment was made enforceable on 18 January 1990.
13.  On 23 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises. On 9 February 1990, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 May 1990.
14.  On 8 May 1990, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  Thereafter, the applicant decided to suspend the eviction attempts, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.
16.  On 30 November 1995, the applicant served again notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises. On 18 December 1995, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 February 1996.
17.  The bailiff made three further attempts to recover possession in enforcing the order for possession, which attempts proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 10 April 1997, the tenants vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Livorno.
9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Livorno, which he had let to A.R.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 September 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 19 October 1991, which was made enforceable on 17 March 1993, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 14 October 1992.
12.  On 23 March 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 6 May 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1993.
14.  Between 8 June 1993 and 26 June 2000, the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession.
15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  In the meantime, on 27 January 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter
17.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
18.  At the beginning of 2002 the tenant vacated the flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Hozat district of Tunceli.
9.  On 7 October 1994 military units arrived in the applicant’s village of Kozluca. The security forces surrounded the village and set up a camp around the village. The Gendarme Commander of the village told the villagers to vacate their houses and to leave the village as the security forces were going to burn the houses.
10.  The villagers left the village and moved to Hozat, where the District Governor placed the applicant and his family in the municipal wedding hall. Other villagers were housed in tents. After they left their village the soldiers burned the houses.
11.  On 14 November 1994 the applicant filed petitions with the Prime Minister’s office, the Tunceli Provincial Governor’s office, the State of Emergency Region Governor’s office and the Welfare and Housing Minister’s office, complaining about the destruction of his home and requesting housing under the provisions of Housing Law no. 2150.
12.  On 12 January 1995 the Deputy Governor, wrote a letter in reply to the applicant, informing him that residences demolished as a result of terrorist raids do not come within the scope of the Law on Disasters (Law no. 7629 - 1051). For this reason, the applicant was not able to benefit from the Housing Law.
13.  The applicant did not pursue any other domestic remedy.
14.  In 1994 security forces took action against PKK terrorists in the province of Tunceli. The PKK terrorists began to threaten and attack villages in order to meet their needs. As a result of the pressure exerted by the PKK, the inhabitants left their villages and fled to larger settlement areas.
15.  The applicant left his village along with other villagers and moved to Hozat. The authorities there lodged him and his family in the wedding hall of the Hozat District Municipality. The applicant received financial aid between 1994 and 1996 for food, heating and health-related expenditure.
16.  On an unspecified date the inhabitants of the Kozluca village lodged criminal complaints with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Hozat. They complained that the security forces in the region had burned their houses. As the case concerned an investigation of acts allegedly committed by the security forces, the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and referred the investigation file to the Hozat District Governor’s office in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
17.  The Hozat District Governor decided to discontinue the investigation on the grounds that the villagers could not identify the perpetrators and the evidence contained in the investigation file led to the conclusion that the village had been burned by PKK terrorists.
5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Závadka nad Hronom.
6.  On 27 September 1994 the applicant claimed a sum of money from an insurance company before the Banská Bystrica District Court.
7.  On 17 May 1995 the District Court transferred the case to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court for reasons of jurisdiction.
8.  On 23 July 1997 the vice-president of the Banská Bystrica Regional Court informed the applicant, in reply to the latter's complaint, that the case could not be proceeded with as the representative of the defendant company had failed to appear at hearings scheduled for 4 June 1996, 26 November 1996 and 6 May 1997.
9.  On 27 February 1998 the Regional Court allowed the applicant to amend his claims.
10.  On 11 November 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court allowed the applicant's action in part and dismissed the remaining claims. The Regional Court further decided that neither party had the right to have the costs reimbursed.
11.  On 8 June 1999 the applicant complained that the judgment with reasons had not yet been served on him. On 20 July 1999 the president of the Regional Court admitted that the complaint was justified  and informed the applicant that the judgment would be sent out shortly. It was served on the applicant on 2 August 1999.
12.  Both the applicant and the defendant company appealed. On 7 October 1999 the applicant withdrew his appeal.
13.  On 30 August 2000 the Supreme Court discontinued the appellate proceedings as the defendant had failed to submit reasons for the appeal.
7.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1941 respectively and live in Gdańsk.
8.  The applicants share a plot of land and a house with another family (hereinafter: the neighbours).
9.  On 17 June 1987 they filed with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they requested that the co-ownership of the plot of land and the house be dissolved.
10.  On 19 April 1989 the court forbade the neighbours to carry out any modifications in the cellar until the completion of the proceedings. On 27 September 1989 a similar order concerning the whole house was issued in respect of the applicants.
11.  On 3 June 1992 the Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The neighbours appealed and on 11 March 1993 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
12.  Subsequently, the District Court held a number of hearings and ordered several expert opinions.
13.  On 28 October 1996 it forbade the neighbours to carry out any works in the house. On 23 May 1997 the Regional Court dismissed their appeal against that decision.
14.  In its letter of 30 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the proceedings were lengthy and found that the applicants’ neighbours had contributed to the delay by their petitions contesting the expert opinions. It further noted that since 1994 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court had supervised the course of the proceedings and made monthly reports on their progress. However, the Ministry found these measures ineffective and decided to take the proceedings under its administrative supervision.
15.  The proceedings are still pending.
6. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Reszel, Poland.
7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8. On 12 July 1994 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action in which she sought a declaration that she had inherited the property of her late aunt.
9. The court held hearings on 25 October and 24 November 1994.
10. On 24 September 1996 it refused the applicant’s request for exemption from courts fees.
11. On 11 May 1999 the court held a hearing. It decided to contact the Office of Foreign Litigation in the United States and enquire whether one of the relatives of the deceased summoned to participate in the proceedings had received the summons. The court stayed the proceedings.
12. On 12 April 2000 it appointed a guardian ad litem for that relative.
13. On 19 May 2000 the court resumed the proceedings.
14. The court held hearings on 18 July and 16 November 2000, as well as on 20 March 2002.
15. The proceedings are still pending.
7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Radom.
8.  In 1977 the applicant, while serving a prison sentence, was injured in an occupational accident. He lodged a compensation claim with the Warsaw Regional Court against the State Treasury. By the Warsaw Regional Court’s judgment of 11 June 1980 the applicant was awarded a monthly pension of 500 (old) PLN, payable from 1 February 1978, and a lump sum of 12,000 PLN as compensation.
9.  On 21 November 1991 the applicant lodged an action with the Warsaw Regional Court claiming that his pension be increased. On an unspecified later date the Warsaw Regional Court transferred his case to the Lublin Regional Court, considering that it had jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hearings in the case were held before the Lublin Regional Court on 8 February 1993, 5 April, 21 November and 20 December 1994.
10.  By a judgment of 30 December 1994 the Lublin Regional Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered that a compensation of 107,000,000 (old) PLN be paid to him, as well as 1,629,650 (old) PLN as monthly pension, from 1 September 1995. The defendant State Treasury, represented by the Warsaw Detention Centre, lodged an appeal against this judgment. As a result, on 31 May 1995 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed the judgment under appeal and ordered the case to be reconsidered.
11.  Subsequently, a number of hearings were held before the Lublin Regional Court and expert reports as to the applicant’s health were ordered and considered by the court.
12.  On 10 May 2000 the Lublin Regional Court gave a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim in its entirety. The applicant appealed.
13.  On 28 September 2000 the Lublin Court of Appeal held a hearing. By a judgment of 11 October 2000 the court partially altered the judgement of the Lublin Regional Court increasing the applicant’s monthly pension to 280 PLN and awarding him compensation of 4179 PLN. On 5 December 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
14.  The proceedings before the Supreme Court are apparently pending.